in the Trumpington prison of William de Bussey. William's two servants, Richard and Adam, subjected Ralph to violence
caus-270 Community of the Realm
ing his death in prison. As the jury presented, they hanged Ralph to death before he was convicted of felony. Richard had fled immediately, so he was outlawed. He did not have chattels in the county but it was ordered that he should be exacted (ex-igatur) in Huntingdonshire. Mabel had escaped from the prison and William was named as responsible for the escape. Later she was captured for larceny in the borough of Cambridge and hanged there. Adam was arrested by William de Ebrocis and was brought to Cambridge by William. But he fled to a church in town and abjured the realm before the coroner, and William de Ebrocis was held responsible for his chattels. When the jus-tice asked the jury if Ralph was imprisoned and so violently injured that it caused his death by the order of William de Bussey, the jury answered 'sic'. Then William de Bussey should be given a judgement. (Henceforward by a later hand) Later it was testified that Adam was arrested after the death of Ralph ... , he belonged to the tithing of Henry le Palmer, who was amerced because of the non-attendance of Adam. Later Richard appeared in court and would pay a fine to stand at court in order to return to the king's peace. The pledge of his fine was the sheriff, John de Scalers. (some remaining words are illegible)45
The couple, Ralph and Mabel, look like villagers, but never-theless both of them were hanged for only a sheep. The important passage in this case is the judgement of William de Bussey, and the jury's verdict. After the jury had presented the incident, which happened in William's territory, the justices be-came aware that William held insufficient authority to have a prisoner hanged to death, so they punished William. In the jury's presentment we can see its ill feeling against William. Still several points are not clear about the record of the case. For
10. Jurors ofThriplow
example, there appeared two different explanations about the arrest of Adam. Richard, even though he was once outlawed, appeared in court later and the sheriff pledged for him. (I have not discovered any further information.) The hundred jury was not hostile to the jurisdiction of the Bishop or of the Prior, but presented against the unqualified action of William de Bussey.
(4) Appeal
The word 'appelavif appears in five cases in the record of Thriplow hundred. In these cases the jury was amerced for concealing an appeal three times. The first case was a murder of a villager of Wethersfield, Essex, that occurred in the field of Little Shelford. The plaintiff, probably the victim's brother, ap-pealed four villagers of Little Shelford in the county court. The trial jury stated in their verdict that the jurors were not unani-mous about the culpability of the defendants. So the judgement was 'all quit'. The plaintiff also appealed twelve other villagers for aiding the offenders, but the jurors' verdict again was not unanimous, resulting in an acquittal for all except one person.
The jury was amerced for concealing the appeal.46 Why did the jury conceal the appeal? Was it because the verdict was not unanimous ?47 Unfortunetely there is not enough evidence to answer the question.
In the second case a shepherd, Willelmus Bercarius of Little Shelford, appealed in the county court Eustaciuth de Harleston of blows and breaking of the king's peace. But the plaintiff ap-peared in court and did not wish to pursue his appeal, so his pledges were amerced. When the justices asked the jury about the matter, it answered that the jury had not been unanimous.
The plaintiff paid a fine.48 But they was amerced for concealment of the appeal. This case seems to be a case of a settlement
out-272 Community of the Realm
side of the court, but the important point about the case is that the defendant, Eustsaciuth, was also a juror of the presenting jury. He was elected to be a juror in.1261 as well as in 1268/69.
So it appears that the presenting jury did not want to send its colleague to the court. The third case followed the second one.
John son of Richard, prepositus of Shelford, appealed Eustaciuth de Hildemer for blows and breaking of the king's peace did not pursue his appeal. The jury concealed this case, too. Because of lack of information, I cannot know the reason.49
In three cases out of five appeals the plaintiffs were villag-ers of Shelford. In the fourth case the murder occurred in Little Shelford and the defendants were also villagers of Little Shel-ford. In the names of the litigants we can read their occupations, such as shepherd, reeve, chaplain, cook, carter and carpenter.
In Shelford, as shown earlier, the justices in eyre did not inter-fere in the private jurisdiction of the Bishop of Ely. Four out of five appeals were related to Shelford. Were the people in Shel-ford fully satisfied with the Bishop's jurisdiction? Those litigants were not substantial landholders judging from the occupation names.
One illegible case is also an appeal about violence and breaking of the king's peace. Four appeals out of five concerned violence. The jury was required to present every felony, but it seems that they hesitated to present cases of assault. The jury tried to lessen the number of appeals. Including them in their presentments meant sending their neighbours to the eyre court where they might be outlawed and their chattels forfeited. The jury did not interfere into the private jurisdiction of the Bishop and the Prior, and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction respected by the justices in eyre.
10. Jurors of Thriplow 273 When the trial jury was introduced, in most cases it gave a verdict of not guilty. The only exception was the case of William de Bussey in which they answered 'yes'. Both the presenting and the trial jury prioritized the protection of their neighbours.
But what we should not forget before we conclude that the jury protected the village community, is that a hundred or a vil-lage was not a community of people with united interests.
Between individuals, and also between the communities, there were conflicts of interest. What the jury could do and did was to manage what had already happened among their neighbours through its role of making presentments and giving verdicts. In the case of the eyre in 1268/69, we can see many examples of conflicts and the compromises among the villagers. 50
4. Comparison between two eyre rolls, 1261 and 1268/69 We have so far focused on the attitude of the presenting jury of Thriplow hundred in the eyre rolls of 1261 and 1268/69.
Investigation of the 1268/69 eyre cases lead to the conclusion that the jury decided that the disinherited could recover the holdings from their neighbours so that they might return to their proper position that they had enjoyed before the rebellion.
The judgement of the itinerant justices had the role of confirm-ing the land settlement between seisitores, the royalists, and the disinherited, the rebels. Second: in the 1261 eyre rolls we can find nineteen cases of presentment and five cases of appeal. The jury presented cases occurring in the hundred to the justices with considerable care so that their neighbours might not lose their life and estates. I also noted the private jurisdictions in the hundred. When a crown plea arose in the territory within private jurisdiction, like the Bishop's and the Prior of Ely's, the jury's
274 Community of the Realm
presentment did not interfere with it. But if the lord holding the liberty did not observe the limit of his jurisdiction, the jury checked the infringement by presenting the case to the royal justices. The justices responded to these signs from the jury and questioned the trial jury, and gave a judgement against the lords. I also noted that the jury dared to avoid presenting cases that could be harmful to the life and the property of the fellow villagers.
The eyre in 1268/69 was a special one. The Dictum of Ken-ilworth was published in the autumn of 1267 to calm the hostility of rebels still fighting in various parts of the country.
Most of the rebels or their adherents could be pardoned and restored to the king's peace by paying the redemption fine or-dained in the Dictum of Kenilworth. The eyre's purpose was to make the jury present rebels' transgressions and to judge how far they had adhered to the baronial cause. So all the trespasses in the rolls of that year were related to the rebellion and disputes concerning the Barons' War. On the other hand, the eyre in 1261 was an ordinary one, usually held once in seven years.
Both civil pleas and crown pleas were recorded in the rolls. As long as the purpose and the issue are concerned, the eyre in 1268/69 looks quite different from that in 1261.51 Though the immediate pacification of the rebels after the battle of Evesham was the main concern of the king, it was not so for the hundred jury nor fellow villagers. The cases in the eyre rolls of 1268/69 could also be interpreted from the view of the local community with a different purpose and concerns. I will make a comparison between the jurors in the two eyre rolls with this in mind.
The first characteristic of the two eyres was the election of the jurors. Five persons were elected as jurors in both of the
10. Jurors of Thriplow 275 eyres.52 Is it realistic to think that the hundred jury of 1268/69 . could have a completely different opinion when deciding their presentment from that of the jury of 1261 with so many re-elected jurors? In 1261 when the hundred jury concealed the case in which Eustaciuth de Harleston, a juror, was appealed, it was amerced by the justices. This is the only case in which a juror became a defendant in the rolls of 1261. No juror was presented by his fellow jurors in that year. But in 1268/69 the jury presented two of its members.53 Had the attitude of the ju-rors, or the principle of presentment, changed since 1261?
Judging from their concealment in 1261, the jurors' attitude of presentment had not changed, and it was rather firmly estab-lished, even if implicitly. 'Not to present the fellow jurors' was the standard for them. The two cases in which they presented their fellow jurors in 1268/69 were exceptional. One of the pre-sented jurors, Hubert Stapelford, was later judged not guilty, and the presenting jury was amerced by the justices for '[also presentatione'.
The second characteristic of the two eyres was the duality of their role as pledges, sureties and mainpernors. In 1261 jurors served neither as a pledge nor a mainpernor for those who were presented by the jury, nor as sureties of payment of fine for any litigant. In 1268/69, however, five of the jurors acted as a pledge for those accused in jury presentments.54 In the latter cases whenever the hundred jury made a presentment that named a holder in the hundred, one or two of them supported them in one of those roles. In 1268/69 presentment did not mean the exclusion of a person from local society, as I men-tioned above. On the contrary, it initiated a necessary legal procedure to nullify what he had committed and to return him
Community of the Realm
to his proper status in the local landholders' society. The jurors were also members of the society and they provided him aid.
The third characteristic was the size of the jurors' holdings.
It seems that there was no big difference in the size of holdings between the two groups of jurors. Regarding the jurors of Thriplow hundred, the number of jurors who held more than half a knight's fee was three in each of the groups. Moreover two of the three were the same.55 About some jurors there is as yet no information of landholding. But there were no great landholders called 'dominus' or with the title as 'knight'.56
The fourth characteristic was the social status of those people named in the presentments. What level of the villagers in the hundred was presented by the jury? Here appears a big difference between the two eyres. In order to ensure the appear-ance of litigants in court, they were sometimes exacted (exigenda) or distrained. The clerks of the justices recorded the property of those litigants to be distrained in the rolls. As far as this infor-mation is concerned, there are entries of their chattels, but no record of their having estates in the rolls of 1261. All the litigants were distrained or exacted by their chattels. Five of them had no chattels. The most expensive fine in 1261 was six marks paid by Richard de Elyngton, a servant of William de Bussey. This was higher than the current farm of this hundred, five marks.
The other servant of William, Adam the reeve, paid a fine of 43 shillings. This was also higher than the former fine of this hun-dred, 40 shillings. There is no evidence of any land held by these two servants of William de Bussey who were levied the highest fines in 1261. Most other litigants paid fines of less than half a mark.57 On the other hand in the case of persons pre-sented in 1268/69, namely the adherents of the rebels who
10. Jurors of Thriplow 277 would like to be pardoned to the king's peace and to redeem their holdings, the size of their property varied from huge ter-ritories scattered in several counties to a tiny single holding.
Not a few of them were holders of a knight's fee, more or less.58 Certainly some people who had no land were also presented and sometimes they were pardoned because of being paupers.
Generally speaking this group included landholders of any size.
But in 1261 the presented persons were rather holders of mov-able goods than land. So the status of litigants was quite different between the two eyres, and I should also note that the jury in 1261 did not present any of the large landholders in the hundred.
I have examined four of the characteristics of the jurors and the litigants in the eyres of 1261 and 1268/69. In some re-spects the two groups of jurors look different from each other, but there are some common points with regards to their attitude in presenting the people in the hundred. The size of holdings of the jurors was similar between the two groups. Any influence from their lords does not seem to have changed in seven years between 1261 and 1268. There was no change of the feudal lords of the hundred jurors, though the information is quite limited. Both groups of jurors assisted those whom they pre-sented in different ways: they concealed a case from the justices, and they became pledges for the presented. In 1261 they pre-sented their neighbours in an effort to protect their life and property, whilst in 1268/69 they presented the rebel adherents to give them a chance to come back to their proper position in the local landholders' society. Although there is certainly a dif-ference between the two groups in various points, there is no or little difference in their attitude or opinion in presenting their
Community of the Realm neighbours.
Conclusion
The jurors of Thriplow Hundred took a great deal of care in presenting their neighbours in order to help them or sustain them in the local community. Trial juries also gave verdicts fa-vourable to the villagers. The community also paid amercements and fines, while the individuals were acquitted.
Neither juries nor the justices in eyre interfered with private jurisdictions in the hundred. But when the lord of the private jurisdiction did deviate from the range of the liberty, the jury dared to present the case, and the justices gave a judgement against the lord holding private jurisdiction. When the people under private jurisdiction were not contented with its justice, the jury reported the case to the royal justices. In contrast to the cases of Armingford hundred, the jury of Thriplow hundred did not live in harmony with the private jurisdiction of the Bishop or the Prior.
In 1254 the articles of the eyre were revised and some new articles were added to include cases of trespass as well as felony.
Historians have explained this revision from the perspective of the king's interest. It seems that the king had become so power-ful that he could now swallow more private jurisdictions. 59 I think it is necessary to add to this explanation the attitude of juries and the interest of local landholders, whose intention was to maintain the existing local landed society by availing them-selves of the king's new policy.
Notes
1 The paper was read at Late Medieval Seminar, Institute of Historical
10. Jurors of Thriplow Research, University of London, 2001.
2 Above chapter 9.
3 Most of the pleadings and judgements were made in 1269.
279
4 P(ublic) R(ecord) O(ffice), London, Just 1/82; Standard List in the PRO; Cam H.M., Studies in the Hundred Rolls, Oxford, 1921, Appendix II; Musson A and Ormrod, W.M., The Evolution of English Justice, London, 1999, ch. 3.
5 Crown plea; felony and trespass in 1260s.
6 P.RO., Just 1/82, mm24, 24d 7 Just 1/83, m33.
8 Just 1/83, mm22, 22d; Dictum of Kenilworth, cl. 27, in Document of the Baronial Movement of Reform and Rebellion 1258-1267, (henceforward DBM) ed. by Treharne, RF., and Sanders, I. J., Oxford 1973, pp. 332-333.
9 Just 1/83, m22d; DBM, pp.324-325. 332-333.
10 Just 1/83, m22d; DBM, pp.332-333.
11 De Antiqibus Liber: Cronica Maiorum et Vicecomitum Londoniarum, ed. by T. Stapleton, Camden Society, xxxiv, London 1846, p.96. Jacob, E.F., Studies in the Period of Reform and Rebellion, Oxford, 1925, pp.182-3.
12 Henry Faber, Henry Waddon, William Muschat, Hubert Stapelford, Salomon de Hauxton(thrice), William de Ely, Baldwin de Akeny, Wil-liam de Newton (twice).
13 Alan Wolsy.
14 Ralph Brun.
15 Henry Orwell, John le Clerk, Henry Martin, John de Paris, Eustace de Harleston.
16 I read a paper at Durham on this theme in 1995. See chapter seven.
17 He was presented in Pappworth hundred.
18 R(otuli) H(undredorum), Record Commission, ed., by W. Illingworth &
J. Caley, 2 vols, 1812-18, vol. 1, pp. 50-1; P(lacita de) Q(uo) W(arranto), Record Commission, ed., by W. lliingworth, 1818, p.100; Pollock &
Maitland, History of English Law before the time of Edward I, 2nd ed., II, p.580; Just 1/82, m27. See chapter nine.
19 V(ictoria) C(ounty) H(istory of England); Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely, vol.8, ed., by AP.M. Wright, Oxford, 1982, pp.152-3; RH. I, p.52,
280 Community of the Realm p.524-54; PQW., pp.100,102-4; PRO., SC 2/155, No.64.
20 Just 1/82, m24d.
21 Liber Eliensis, p.300; Regesta Anglo Normanorum, iii, p.51.
22 Just 1/82, m24d.
23 Just 1/82, m24d.
24 R.H., i, p.52, ii, p.545; Ibid, i, p.52 25 R.H., ii, p.548.
26 Just 1/82, m24d.
27 VCH., vol.8, p.161; R.H., i, p.52.
28 Just 1/82, m24d.
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid;
31 Pollock & Maitland, op. cit., II, pp.455, 464.
32 Just 1/82, m24.
33 R.H., i, p.52; ii. p.550, PQO, p.104.
34 VCH., vol.8, p.153.
35 Musson and Ormrod, op. cit., p.18.
36 Pollock and Maitland, op. cit., I, pp.519, 580-3; J. Baker, An Introduc-tion to English Legal History, 3rd ed., London, 1990, p.572; Musson and Ormrod, op. cit., p.18.
37 The latter half is illegible. Just 1/82, m24d.
38 Just 1/82, mm24, 24d, 25.
39 Just 1/82, m24.
40 Just 1/82, m24d. Peter of Savoy, who claimed the view of frankpledge in a village in Armingford hundred, was not given any judgement by the justice in the same type of the case.
41 Just 1/82, m24d; R.H., i, p.52.
42 Just 1/82, m24d. According to the Hundred Rolls, it was not the Bishop of Ely, but the Prior of Ely who claimed the view of frankpledge in the villages of Newton and Hauxton. R.H., i, p.52. ii. p.550; P.Q. W., p.104;
Liber Eliensis, pp.263, 300, 304. On the other hand in the other half of the twin village of Newton-Hauxton, Serio de Haukeston held of the Bishop of Ely, and the manor kept court baron. Liber Bernewell, ed., by Clark, p.250; V.C.H., vol. 8(Ely Diocesan Record), p.202.
43 Just 1/82, m24d.
44 V.C.H., vol.8, p.258; (Calendar of) C(lose) R(olls), 1339--41, p.38;C.R.,